well, maybe I am bitter. At least my LSAT score is in the 99th percentile -- although I know you did even better.

I do agree with you that leadership and intelligence are not the same thing, but you can't validly state that they are inversely correlated. That would mean anyone getting a 1600 automatically has less leadership ability than anyone getting a 400. That may be true in some cases, but I really doubt it is a trend.

buster

vagrant, do you have any actual idea of what sorts of policies are favored by "liberals" and why they are so favored or do you just spin the big liberal-stereotype wheel and see what the arrow lands on?

The cuts did help high earners more - my household's six-figure income got a nice big tax cut, my parents' working-class income recieved a barely perceptible tax cut. Yet I was opposed to the cuts, and they were pro. Go figure.)

Mrs_Malaprop-

I understand what you mean, but what is barely perceptible to one household is absolutely huge to another household. My family is VERY working class and we received a tax cut of a few hundred (maybe 300) dollars. It sounds trivial, but that was the money that allowed me to buy textbooks. Otherwise my parents would have paid, and had less money to buy food for my younger siblings, gas for their cars, etc.

I understand what you mean, but what is barely perceptible to one household is absolutely huge to another household. My family is VERY working class and we received a tax cut of a few hundred (maybe 300) dollars. It sounds trivial, but that was the money that allowed me to buy textbooks. Otherwise my parents would have paid, and had less money to buy food for my younger siblings, gas for their cars, etc.

I actually support lowering the tax burden in general for those at the lower end of the income scale. The more you need that money to live on (and to further your own/your kids' education, pay for health care, etc), the more you should be able to keep from your paychecks to do just that. And I agree that it should be granted above and beyond incentive measures like tax credits and deductions, because lowering the overall tax rate would put a few more dollars back in each take-home paycheck for people who really need it right away, rather than giving back in a lump sum at tax time. I just disagree with the across-the-board tax cut sponsored by the current administration.

My parents were probably a bad example anyway, since they are older, have paid off their mortgage, have significant savings, and have only adult children who have not been dependant on them for years. They are in probably the best financial shape of their lives - the tax cut was nice, but not really needed by them to get by. I'm sure it was much more important to others, like your family.

Funny you should mention the refund check - my mom brings that up a lot as well. Probably the $600 that went to my parents was more meaningful to them than it was to my husband and me. (I'm still amazed at what they managed to accomplish with so little money when I was growing up - I'm sure they put that check to good use.) At the time, I was getting bonus checks from work for many times that amount, in addition to my six-figure salary. (Bonuses are taxed up the wazoo by the way - a $10K bonus might net you $4,300. Eeek.) It just wasn't a significant thing for us. Perhaps there should have been an eligibility cutoff.

In any case, the refund was a just a one-time deal (although a popular one, for obvious reasons). Although it was helpful for you and I'm sure for many others, it's not something you'll get every year. When I said that the tax cut was barely perceptible for my parents, I meant the ongoing difference in payroll tax, not the one-time refund. My parents barely saw a difference in take-home pay after the cut, while my husband and I got a few hundred more per paycheck. That didn't seem fair or right to me. I thought that at the very least people in my position or better (because I recognize that I'm lucky to live in this country and have the opportunities I do) should have foregone the tax cut so that the break that the lowest bracket or two received could be more significant.

BigTex

From my personal experience with various companies that proclaim themselves to be "meritocracies", here's what it *actually* means in practice:

Give all your cronies the plum assignments that could have a big impact on the company. Give all the inconsequential projects to your political enemies. After giving the plum assignments to your buddies, make sure to lower the bar of expectations right after you give them the project. That way, they can put in just an average performance and yet bust through expectations. Meanwhile, for the people you gave the cr*ap assignment to, make sure to raise the bar of expectation. That whay, they'll have to do a WHOLE lot to succeed on a project that won't have any consequence on the company even if it is a marvelous success.

After the quarter is complete and performance evaluations are made, your cronies will have shown themselves to have more "merit" than your political enemies. That's the *real* story behind companies proclaiming themselves to be meritocracies, at least in my experience.